Journal of Religion & Film Volume 8 Issue 1 Special Issue: Passion of the Christ (February Article 10 2004)
12-12-2016 Biblical Scholarship and the Passion Surrounding The aP ssion of the Christ Frances Flannery-Dailey Hendrix College, [email protected]
Recommended Citation Flannery-Dailey, Frances (2016) "Biblical Scholarship and the Passion Surrounding The asP sion of the Christ," Journal of Religion & Film: Vol. 8 : Iss. 1 , Article 10. Available at: https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/jrf/vol8/iss1/10
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@UNO. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Religion & Film by an authorized editor of DigitalCommons@UNO. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Biblical Scholarship and the Passion Surrounding The aP ssion of the Christ
Abstract The er lease of the film has engendered a spectrum of fervent responses, becoming in itself atheological event shaped by merchandising, media, and audience reception. For a long while, images from a movie will inform the lens through which many of our students and the general public read the Gospels, as well as influence the ways in which some Jews and Christians view one another. Reactions to the film will differ markedly, magnifying and possibly reifying the various theological stances of audience members. Since much of the furor revolves around issues of interpretation of Scripture, biblical scholars can provide informed and thoughtful contributions to the debate. In other words, the release of The Passion, as well as other films with religious themes, provides a valuable opportunity for raising the level of public discourse on religion, enabling us to foster careful inquiry in our classrooms, writings, churches and synagogues. From my point of view as a biblical scholar, this filmic event raises four points deserving of discussion that illuminate the divide between the conclusions of mainstream biblical scholarship and public understandings of biblical texts.
This article is available in Journal of Religion & Film: https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/jrf/vol8/iss1/10 Flannery-Dailey: Biblical Scholarship and the Passion Surrounding The Passion of the Christ
The U.S. cinematic release of Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ (Icon
Productions, 2004) last Ash Wednesday has vividly demonstrated the degree to
which film can inform popular religion. The film, which depicts the final twelve
hours of Jesus' life in super-gory, Friday the Thirteenth fashion, has garnered an
enormous outpouring of support from conservative Christian groups. Numerous
websites have appeared in support of the film, urging churches to buy blocks of
tickets, and many conservative Catholic and evangelical Protestant leaders seem to
view the film as a tremendous opportunity to evangelize.1 Cleverly, the production
company Icon has intentionally merchandised the film as a religious opportunity to
save souls and strengthen faith. The official website includes a button for "Spread
the Word,"2 which includes merchandise such as "Witnessing Tools," as well
as Passion cross or nail jewelry (also available in Aramaic), coffee mugs, framed
photos, and lapel pins. The company also sent out pre-screenings to approximately
15,000 selected Christian church leaders, some of whom received an instructional
DVD on how evangelize with the film.3
By contrast, others have expressed grave concerns about theological bias in
this film that could occasion anti-Semitism. Some Jews, Christians, and persons of
no particular faith who have seen the film have argued that the interpretation
portrays Jews excessively negatively.4 Prominent Jewish leaders such as Rabbi
Marvin Hier of the Simon Wiesenthal Center and Abraham Foxman of the Anti-
Defamation League have publicly expressed concerns that the film could occasion
Published by DigitalCommons@UNO, 2004 1 Journal of Religion & Film, Vol. 8 [2004], Iss. 1, Art. 10
acts of retaliation or negative attitudes against Jews.5 Prior to the film's release, the
tension had been exacerbated by Gibson, who declined to give the Jewish leaders
copies of the film, denied them access to the special pre-screenings arranged for
Christian pastors,6 and refused invitations to meet and discuss their
concerns.7Those who worry over the film's ability to spark anti-Semitism note that
violence against Jews has been legitimized from before the First Crusade to well
beyond the Holocaust by appeals to the misguided dictum that "the Jews killed
Christ," and that for a thousand years some passion plays have helped fuel hatred
of Jews.8 Given the rise of anti-Semitism in many parts of the world, these fears do
not appear to be unfounded, particularly since the very expression of concern about
the film by the ADL has resulted in volumes of hate mail.9
Thus, the release of the film has engendered a spectrum of fervent
responses, becoming in itself atheological event shaped by merchandising, media,
and audience reception. For a long while, images from a movie will inform the lens
through which many of our students and the general public read the Gospels, as
well as influence the ways in which some Jews and Christians view one another.
Reactions to the film will differ markedly, magnifying and possibly reifying the
various theological stances of audience members. Since much of the furor revolves
around issues of interpretation of Scripture, biblical scholars can provide informed
and thoughtful contributions to the debate. In other words, the release of The
Passion, as well as other films with religious themes, provides a valuable
https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/jrf/vol8/iss1/10 2 Flannery-Dailey: Biblical Scholarship and the Passion Surrounding The Passion of the Christ
opportunity for raising the level of public discourse on religion, enabling us to
foster careful inquiry in our classrooms, writings, churches and synagogues. From
my point of view as a biblical scholar, this filmic event raises four points deserving
of discussion10 that illuminate the divide between the conclusions of mainstream
biblical scholarship and public understandings of biblical texts.
First, concerns that anti-Semitism is inherent in the film or could result from
the film seem to have a legitimate basis, if one considers how the plot is constructed.
Most audience members recognize that the film is drawn from the Gospels, which
in part it is, and for some the issue of possible anti-Semitism simply ends there in
favor of "faithfully" depicting the Gospels. Gibson himself seems to hold this view;
his assurances that he is not trying to foster anti-Semitism are repeatedly punctuated
with afterthoughts such as, "It's true that, as the Bible says, He came unto his own
and his own received him not; I can't hide that."11 However, what needs to be noted
is that the plot of the film is a fictionalized interpretation and harmonization from
selected parts of the passion stories in the Gospels, and that when strewn together
in a new fashion, the bits portray the Roman procurator Pilate positively and the
Jews extremely negatively.
The Passion of the Christ draws much of its portrait of Pilate (Hristo
Naumov Shopov) from the Gospel of Luke, portraying the Roman leader Pilate as
deeply reluctant to convict Jesus (James Caviezel) at the behest of a bloodthirsty
crowd. In Luke, Pilate's multiple attempts to free Jesus include sending him to the
Published by DigitalCommons@UNO, 2004 3 Journal of Religion & Film, Vol. 8 [2004], Iss. 1, Art. 10
Jewish leader Herod, who is thus partially responsible for Jesus' eventual conviction
(Luke 23:1-12). The film includes this addition, unique in the Gospels, and goes
further: it shows Pilate as helpless against the High Priest Caiaphas (Mattia Sbragia)
and incredulous at the Jewish crowd's rabid demands. The official website
interprets one scene thusly: "[Jesus] is brought back before Pilate, who presents
him to the crowd as if to say, 'Is this not enough?' It is not." To even greater effect,
the film conflates this with the scene from Matthew in which Pilate washes his
hands of the crime. Moreover, Pilate's wife apparently shows kindness to Mary
(Maia Morgenstern) and Mary Magdalene (Monica Belluci).12 Thus, Pilate's most
positive moments from various Gospels are interwoven in a new story that portrays
him even more sympathetically, as a weak man controlled by an insatiable Jewish
mob and an evil, powerful Jewish High Priest.
Yet this scenario is certainly not mandated by a combined account of the
Gospels, which could have been explored with greater sensitivity both to history
and to contemporary Jewish-Christian relations. For instance, the Gospel of John
clearly does not portray Caiaphas as a figure who intimidates Pilate, but rather as a
fearful leader anticipating Roman reprisals against the Jews and hence willing to
sacrifice Jesus' one life to save the many (John 18:14). In contrast to Gibson's film,
the Gospel of Mark, probably the earliest Gospel and hence the most historically
accurate, depicts Pilate as a Roman official who realizes that the accusations against
Jesus stem from envy, but who does little to nothing to protect him. In other words,
https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/jrf/vol8/iss1/10 4 Flannery-Dailey: Biblical Scholarship and the Passion Surrounding The Passion of the Christ
Pilate is a ruthless leader in control who, "wishing to satisfy the crowd," gives in
rather easily, while adding floggings for good measure (Mark 15:1-20). This
squares very well with what we know of Pilate historically, a cruel dictator who
crucified thousands of Jews for the merest hint of rebellion. Such Roman brutality
certainly makes sense of the later passage in which Roman soldiers torture Jesus
with mock royal garb. Moreover, attention to the contextualization of "the crowd"
in each Gospel could have resulted in a more sensitive and more theologically
responsible filmic portrayal of those present at the passion.13 In the Gospel of Mark,
for example, "the crowd," far from representing all Jews, is the same stock character
of "the crowd" that swarms Jesus throughout the Gospel. Their betrayal thus
becomes a metaphor for the unfaithfulness of all of humankind, vividly illustrating
humanity's collective responsibility for the crucifixion.
Thus, the problem is not that Gibson has woven together a new story, but
that the film establishes an overall pattern that portrays Jews negatively while
whitewashing the Roman official who, historically, was responsible for executing
Jesus. The fact that Jesus, Mary and the disciples were all Jews is obscured, since
as a passion play the film omits the entire Jewish life and teachings of Jesus. The
result implicitly reads on screen as a drama with two clear opposing sides: God
versus Satan (who appears in female form) and Christian saints against the
Jews.14 This tendency to place the blame on the Jews is most evident in a scene,
which was supposed to be deleted just before release due to feedback from focus
Published by DigitalCommons@UNO, 2004 5 Journal of Religion & Film, Vol. 8 [2004], Iss. 1, Art. 10
groups, showing the High Priest Caiaphas calling down the blood-libel curse upon
all of the Jewish people.15
The second problem raised by The Passion is that despite the fact that the
film selectively draws from the Gospels as well as from non-biblical sources, many
viewers assume the film is an accurate reflection of the Bible. As one viewer
commented, "I thought it was just as the Bible teaches it."16 Yet The
Passion actually constructs its story by harmonizing selective bits from the
Gospels, adding Roman Catholic traditions from sources such as the centuries old
Oberammergau passion play and the visions of the nun Sister Anne
Emmerich,17 scripting other scenes from Gibson's own imagination, and relating
the dialogue in Aramaic and Latin - although the New Testament is written in Koine
Greek. Thus, several portions of the film are not biblical. Yet it may be hard for
some movie-goers to remember this in light of the intentionally theological
merchandising by the franchise, which sponsors an authorized International Bible
Society's New Testament that will include stills from the film as illustrations of the
passion story, thereby making the identification of Gibson's version with Scripture
complete.18
The third problem the film raises also concerns audience reception, namely,
the way in which some viewers immediately equate the film with reality. An article
in a local newspaper near my home in Arkansas was riddled with quotes from
movie-goers expressing this opinion, e.g.: "the violence portrayed exactly what
https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/jrf/vol8/iss1/10 6 Flannery-Dailey: Biblical Scholarship and the Passion Surrounding The Passion of the Christ
happened, exactly what Jesus went through," and "You don't realize the amount of
scourging and suffering that Jesus went through . . . Compare his body to the other
guys hanging on the cross, and they weren't beaten like Jesus was."19 The Pope
himself purportedly stated after viewing the film, "It is as it was," although Vatican
officials hastily and loudly retracted the comment.20 In a sense this speaks to the
enormous power of the visual medium, demonstrating that, as Baudrillard has
argued, the media becomes reality for some.21 This result is facilitated by The
Passion of the Christ in particular, given that it simulates the aura of an historical
documentary by filming in ancient garb in and around Rome and clothing itself
with the authority of ancient languages and scriptural references. Here, New
Testament scholars in particular can provide a needed corrective by pointing out
the ways in which any harmonization of the Gospels glosses over important
differences that occlude each Gospel writer's personal vision of Jesus, actually
thwarting the difficult task of amassing historical material for the life of Jesus.
However, what is really at issue is not the historicity of Gibson's depiction,
but the theological verity some consider it to possess. John Lyden has recently made
the cogent argument that film is not only informed by religion, but can also itself
function as religion.22 The views of one audience member are telling: "I dare
anyone not to believe after watching it."23 What is troubling is how that insight is
achieved. Along with its atmosphere of historical and theological authenticity, The
Passion of the Christ employs an unprecedented number of gallons of blood and
Published by DigitalCommons@UNO, 2004 7 Journal of Religion & Film, Vol. 8 [2004], Iss. 1, Art. 10
shockingly graphic scenes of violence to arouse the audience's emotions. However,
while emotions are certainly a valid expression of encounter with the mysterium
tremendum, this cinematic experience deserves more careful reflection, since it also
makes the audience voyeurs of excessive violence.24
The fourth problematic issue is related to the previous ones, namely, a lack
of general recognition of the role Gibson's authorial voice plays in shaping the story
that is perceived by some to be identical with theological, scriptural and historical
reality. Gibson's influence in crafting and producing The Passion has been
extensive: he co-wrote, directed, and financed the project himself for 25 million
dollars. Auteur theory would have us consider his larger body of work in
interpreting this film, whereupon we find the stamp of stunningly graphic violence
on films such as Braveheart (1995), which he directed, and on those in which he
has starred, such as Mad Max (1979), Payback (1999), and The Patriot (2000).
Furthermore, since it is axiomatic in biblical scholarship that the redactor's agenda
significantly shapes borrowings from other texts - whether the editor is Paul, Luke
or Mel - it is in fact important to consider Gibson's personal theological stances.
As early as a year ago, an article by New York Times Magazine reporter
Christopher Noxon explored connections between Mel Gibson's religious
convictions and The Passion of the Christ.25Gibson holds that true Christianity is
represented by the sect called Catholic Traditionalism, which maintains that
everything that follows the Second Vatican Council - particularly the translation of
https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/jrf/vol8/iss1/10 8 Flannery-Dailey: Biblical Scholarship and the Passion Surrounding The Passion of the Christ
the mass into vernacular languages - is a serious error.26 By extension, the sect also
formally rejects the conclusions of Vatican II that absolve the Jewish people as a
whole of the charge of deicide.27 Gibson's dedication to the Traditionalist
interpretation of Catholicism is evident in his role as director, chief executor, and
sole contributor of millions of dollars to a nonprofit company associated with a
church group named Holy Family. This group recently split from more liberal
Catholic Traditionalists and founded a new church with an all Latin mass, about
which Mel commented: "the Creator instituted something very specific, and we
can't just go change it."28 In fact, according to the Italian newspaper Il Giornale,
Gibson has called the Vatican "a wolf in sheep's clothing."29
These words echo sentiments expressed by his Traditionalist father Hutton
Gibson, author of conspiracy books such as Is the Pope Catholic? and proponent
of the doctrine of Sedevacantism, which maintains that the popes since Vatican II
are illegitimate "Anti-Popes." While Traditionalists may place the general blame
for Christ's death on Jews, Hutton Gibson represents an extremist position that is
highly suspicious of contemporary Jewish activities. For instance, the elder
Gibson's writings, as well as his interviews with Noxon, are littered with the
following claims among others: the figure of 6 million Jews killed in the Holocaust
is greatly inflated, there were more Jews after the Holocaust than before, the
Holocaust was actually a conspiracy involving Hitler and financiers to move Jews
Published by DigitalCommons@UNO, 2004 9 Journal of Religion & Film, Vol. 8 [2004], Iss. 1, Art. 10
to Israel so that they could fight the Arabs, and the reforms of the Second Vatican
Council were "a Masonic plot backed by the Jews."30
It is unclear to what extent Mel Gibson adopts his father's positions on
modern Jews, yet as I have shown, it remains evident that the portrayals of ancient
Jews and the Roman Pilate in The Passion of the Christ are accepted by some
audience members as reality. Such movie-goers should be more wary of uncritically
adopting the theology proposed by Gibson's interpretation - unless of course they
too are Catholic Traditionalists who uphold Sedevacantism. What is called for now
is informed and respectful discourse on film and the interpretation of the Bible, and
scholars of Bible are in a position to voice unique observations.31 We who
appreciate the complexities of canon formation and of the various renditions of the
passion know that the Jews' cry of "his blood be on us and on his children" in
Matthew must be contextualized in an intra-Jewish debate, and that John's depiction
of "the Jews" marks a developing anti-Semitism in just one Gentile branch of many
Christianities developing in the late first and early second centuries. We deeply
appreciate the extent to which Jesus, the disciples, and the earliest Christians were
Jewish, such that the ongoing debate in early church houses was whether or not one
could be a Christian and not be a Jew.32 We recognize how skewed is the charge of
Jewish deicide, since crucifixion was a Roman penalty for crimes against the
state.33 In other words, our specialized knowledge can lend an acute awareness to
issues such as anti-Semitism in the plot of The Passion of the Christ, and given the
https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/jrf/vol8/iss1/10 10 Flannery-Dailey: Biblical Scholarship and the Passion Surrounding The Passion of the Christ
social impact the film is having, it is well worth our time to contribute to the public
conversation.
Addendum from the author
My original essay appeared at the request of the Society of Biblical
Literature's Forum, an online journal by and for biblical scholars. The article was
published to coincide with the American release of the film on February 25th, 2004
and was prefaced by an explanatory note stating that I wrote the piece while
residing in London, where the film opened on March 26th. Accordingly, I restricted
the majority of my comments to the phenomenon surrounding the film and based
my limited observations on the film's content on the plot synopsis as provided by
the film company on its officially sponsored website.34 Now that I have viewed the
film in its entirety, some additional brief reflections are in order.
In my original article on The Passion of the Christ, I argued that an aura of
ancient authenticity evoked by the film's languages, sets, and biblical quotes was
augmented by media, merchandising, and evangelical ministries to suggest strongly
to audiences that Gibson's filmic interpretation of the passion was biblically,
historically, and theologically accurate. My movie going experience in the U.K.
powerfully confirmed this point. Free evangelizing postcards depicting Jesus
/James Caviezel were available in a display in the theater's lobby, sponsored by an
Published by DigitalCommons@UNO, 2004 11 Journal of Religion & Film, Vol. 8 [2004], Iss. 1, Art. 10
interdenominational Christian consortium, the Christian Enquiry Agency
(www.rejesus.co.uk/thepassion), and my ticket purchase was accompanied by a
free witnessing book distributed by the movie theater, the Odeon Corporation (on
Tottenham Court Road, London), in cooperation with a group called the Catholic
Exchange and a Catholic corporation called www.Xt3.com.35 The book's back
cover proclaims that the film is "more than just an extraordinary Hollywood
production - it is a call to reconsider the person of Jesus Christ,"36 while the book's
contents consistently defend the theological, biblical, and historical accuracy of the
film. The following excerpt is typical:
This questioning by the devil (in the Garden) does not appear in the Bible, so here we have an example of the filmmaker taking some creative license. Based on the other instances in the Scriptures where Jesus is tempted by the devil, however, it is entirely plausible that such an exchange could have occurred.37
Hence, the suggestion is that even the director's imaginative additions are in
keeping with both historical and theological verity. Given that the release of the
film has been accompanied by such purposeful merchandising /evangelizing
strategies, the points I make in my article bear repeating to audiences: the film is
unbiblical to a significant degree and patently ahistorical on numerous points,
stemming from a particularistic sectarian interpretation of Catholicism that is at
odds with the theology of many of those who support it (including most of the
ministries that produced the merchandise that came free with my ticket).
https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/jrf/vol8/iss1/10 12 Flannery-Dailey: Biblical Scholarship and the Passion Surrounding The Passion of the Christ
As for the content of the film itself, I found the violence to be more horrific
and graphic, the plot less biblically based, and the issue of gender more complex
than I had anticipated.38 However, in the interest of brevity I will confine my
remaining postscript to addressing the issue of anti-Semitism in and occasioned by
the film. On the one hand, it was apparent to me that a viewer who is disposed to
think carefully about Jewish-Christian relations and who is favorably inclined
towards Jews could in fact focus on the few positive Jewish portrayals and conclude
the film portrays both Jews and Romans in positive and negative ways. On the other
hand, I am more convinced than ever that the film could engender anti-Semitism in
many viewers and that Gibson's production presents an overwhelmingly negative
portrayal of Jews. The Jews who are "good" are those who become saints in
Catholic tradition: Mary the Mother of God, Mary Magdalene, Peter, James, John,
Simon of Cyrene, and lesser known characters such as Veronica who wipes Jesus'
face with her veil.39 By contrast, the average Jews in the crowd are bloodthirsty,
uncompassionate, cruel, and - worse - evil, since they are influenced by Satan, who
consistently walks among them.
In this film, "the Jews" kill Jesus, and the point is driven home by a
thoroughly sanitized depiction of Pontius Pilate. In Gibson's film, Pilate is a
sympathetic, pitiable man who tries hard to take the morally correct road, yet his
hands are tied by the "filthy rabble" he is consigned to control, a point he makes
repeatedly. Moreover, he actually scourges Jesus in order to prevent an impending
Published by DigitalCommons@UNO, 2004 13 Journal of Religion & Film, Vol. 8 [2004], Iss. 1, Art. 10
revolt by Caiaphas the Jewish High Priest and thus prevent the bloodshed of the
masses! Such a fabrication is completely contrary to the testimony of John 18:14
and the historical evidence of Pilate's exceptional cruelty and mass murders, which
earned him reprimands from Rome for excessive violence. In the film but not in the
Bible, Jesus basically absolves Pilate of responsibility for his death, saying "It is he
who delivered me to you who has the greatest sin," leaving the viewer to assume
the blame rests on Caiaphas the Jew or perhaps on the tangled mass of Jewish
conspirators.
Finally, the importance of the visual elements in this formulation should not
be missed. Whereas the "good" proto-Christian Jews are often lovely people by
typical white Euro-American standards (especially in the case of Jesus), the
"wicked" average Jewish masses are readily identifiable by visual depictions that
could come straight out of a medieval painting demonizing Jews (e.g. see
Hieronymous Bosch's Christ Carrying the Cross). Broken teeth, cataracts,
prominent noses, and dark, dirty skin abound, and would have functioned even
more strongly as filmic code for the "bad side" in the original plan to release the
film without subtitles. Nowhere is this clearer than in the troubling scene in which
two sweet-faced Jewish boys transform repeatedly into demonic monsters as they
taunt Judas, thereby establishing a clear visual association between average Jews
and Satan. To any degree, this is a dangerous formulation that promotes division.
As the recent tragedies of the Madrid bombings remind us, we cannot afford such
https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/jrf/vol8/iss1/10 14 Flannery-Dailey: Biblical Scholarship and the Passion Surrounding The Passion of the Christ
narrowness of vision at a time when we should instead be seeking understanding of
and compassion for the array of humans who uphold the pluriform interpretations
of truth present in our challenging, postmodern world, even as we affirm our own
articulations of Truth.
Notes
1. Associated Press article, "Faithful Get Sneak Peek at 'Passion,'" New York Times (Feb. 21, 2004), see also "Gibson's Film May Be a Precursor to Revival" at the Christian Bookseller's Organization. Rev. Jack Graham, president of the Southern Baptist Convention, expresses the views of many conservative church leaders in stating that the film "sum[s] up the message and meaning of the cross," further suggesting, "We anticipate that there will be a tremendous outpouring of God's favor on this movie." "Gibson's 'Passion' Draws Crowds," CBS News, Feb. 25, 2004.
2. As of the writing of this article, clicking the "Spread the Word" tab at www.thepassionofthechrist.comwill take you to "Merchandise" as well as to "Support the Film," and choosing the former changes the web address to www.sharethepassionofthechrist.com, thus directly equating consumerism with evangelizing. The two main buttons that appear under "Merchandise" are "Witness" and "Jewelry."
3. "Faithful Get Sneak Peek."
4. The Secretariat for Ecumenical and Inter-religious Affairs of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Department of Inter-religious Affairs of the Anti-Defamation League convened a joint Catholic and Jewish scholarly team which examined early copies of the script of The Passion of the Christ. In his article in the special "Passion" edition of the Journal of Religion and Film, a member of the team, John Pawlikowski, OSM, Ph.D., recalls: "Each of us read it individually before we compared notes. When we did begin a group discussion of the script, we quickly concluded that it was one of the most troublesome texts relative to anti-Semitic potential that any of us had seen in 25 years." See John T. Pawlikowski, "Christian Anti-Semitism: Past History, Present Challenges - Reflections in Light of Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ," Journal of Religion and Film 8:1 (Feb. 2004). Also see the article by another member of the commission, Philip A. Cunningham, "The Arrest and Sentencing of Jesus: A Historical Reconstruction," Journal of Religion and Film 8:1 (Feb. 2004); available at the same website. For film reviewers who express concerns about the portrayal of Jews in the film, see especially Jack Miles, "Mel Gibson's 'Passion': What Makes this Film So Different?" and David Edelstein, "Jesus H. Christ: The Passion, Mel Gibson's Bloody Mess," posted Feb. 24, 2004.
5. Randy Kennedy, "'Passion' Film Is Incendiary, 2 Jewish Leaders Report," New York Times (Jan. 23, 2004), A12.
Published by DigitalCommons@UNO, 2004 15 Journal of Religion & Film, Vol. 8 [2004], Iss. 1, Art. 10
6. Kennedy, "Incendiary." Due to the restrictions placed on them, Rabbi Hier had to obtain a pre- lease copy provided by a friend, while Foxman admits sneaking into a showing for pastors.
7. Sharon Waxman, "Gibson to Delete A Scene in 'Passion,'" New York Times Arts/Cultural Desk (Feb. 4, 2004).
8. For an excellent, succinct account of connections between passion plays and anti-Semitism, see R. Mork, "Christ's Passion on Stage - The Traditional Melodrama of Deicide," Journal of Religion and Film 8:1 (Feb. 2004).
9. For a discussion of this hate mail and some examples, see "ADL's Criticism of Mel Gibson's 'Passion' Elicits Anti-Semitic Responses." Such a climate makes it troubling that the official website of The Passion of the Christ posts an inflammatory article by Rabbi Daniel Lapin, president of Toward Tradition, a coalition of Orthodox Jews and evangelical Christians seeking to return America to traditionally conservative political values (www.towardtradition.org/mission.htm). Rather than engaging in thoughtful and respectful debate, the article fuels anger at the ADL and other Jewish groups by hurling insults at those Jewish leaders who express concern over the film. Lapin calls them "breathtakingly arrogant" and accuses them of hating Christians, of showing a lack of intelligence, of actually being out for money (that stereotype of greedy Jews here perpetuated by a Jew), and of harming the Jewish community by "bludgeon[ing] resentful people [Christians] into silence." Thus, the website official sponsorship of the Jewish opinion is hardly representative. See Lapin's article in full on www.thepassionofthechrist.com.
10. Although there is not space to discuss it, I have other concerns as a scholar of religion and film that relate to the way visual images are employed to communicate the message in this story and other Jesus films. Discussions are well worth having on the following topics: the portrayal of Jesus' ethnicity, the construction of femaleness in the film (particularly with respect to the character of Satan), and the visual depiction of those Jews who are not Christian saints as opposed to those who are.
11. Interview in Zenit (March 6, 2003), quoted in Kari Haskell, "The Passion of Mel Gibson," New York Times (Feb. 22, 2004).
12. From Edelstein, "Jesus H. Christ."
13. See Dennis Hamm, "Are the Gospel Accounts Anti-Jewish?" in Journal of Religion and Film 8:1 (Feb. 2004).
14. Gibson has noted repeatedly that he drew much inspiration for the film from the writings of the 18th visionary mystic nun Sister Anne Catherine Emmerich, who reflects the virulent anti-Semitism of her day. Her writings are apparently the source of the film's depiction of the devil who keeps whispering in the ears of the Jews and of the demonic Jewish children who throng around Satan.
15. See Waxman, "Gibson to Delete a Scene." For a particularly insightful interpretation of the blood-libel passage in Matthew explaining its literary function as an ironic blessing on the Jews, see Hamm.
https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/jrf/vol8/iss1/10 16 Flannery-Dailey: Biblical Scholarship and the Passion Surrounding The Passion of the Christ
16. Audience member Jim Holland, as quoted by Sharon Miller, "Large Crowds Flock to See 'The Passion of the Christ,'" The Baxter Bulletin (Feb. 26, 2004).
17. See note 15 for Emmerich's anti-Semitism. The nun is being considered for canonization as a saint. For more on her influence on the film see www.beliefnet.com and the article by Laura Sheahen, "Another Scriptwriter for Mel Gibson's 'Passion'?"
18. Oddly enough, this identification seems to be made by many evangelical Protestant Christians as readily as by conservative Catholics, although much in the film - particularly those parts inspired by Sister Emmerich - clearly evince a Roman Catholic theology.
19. Movie-goers Randy and Bernadette Godwin, as quoted in Miller, "Large Crowds."
20. Bill Blakemore, "Papal Endorsement? Controversy Brews over Pope John Paul II's Reaction to The Passion," ABC News (Jan. 22, 2004).
21. Jean Baudrillard, Simulacra and Simulation (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1978).
22. John Lyden, Film as Religion: Myths, Morals, Rituals (New York: NYU Press, 2003).
23. Movie-goer Kim Galbreath, quoted in "Gibsons 'Passion' Draws Crowds," CBS News (Feb. 25, 2004).
24. Anyone wanting to see a glimpse of the excessive gore need only go to the official website. One critic for Slate magazine dubbed the film The Jesus Chainsaw Massacre and noted it was like watching a "two-hour-and-six-minute snuff movie," Edelstein, "Jesus H. Christ."
25. Christopher Noxon, "Is the Pope Catholic ... Enough?" New York Times Magazine, March 9, 2003.
26. See Michael W. Cuneo, The Smoke of Satan: Conservative and Traditionalist Dissent in Contemporary American Catholicism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997).
27. See also Michael G. Lawler, "Sectarian Catholicism and Mel Gibson," JRF 8:1 (Feb. 2004).
28. Quoted in Noxon, "Is the Pope Catholic."
29. Ibid.
30. Hutton Gibson interview with Noxon, "Is the Pope Catholic."
31. See especially the excellent collection of essays exploring The Passion of the Christ and religion from a symposium at the University of Nebraska at Omaha, available in a special issue of the Journal of Religion and Film 8:1 (Feb. 2004).
32. E.g. Acts 10 and 15, Gal 2, Phil 3:1-7.
Published by DigitalCommons@UNO, 2004 17 Journal of Religion & Film, Vol. 8 [2004], Iss. 1, Art. 10
33. With some Jewish leaders of the Temple supporting him, the historical Pontius Pilate most likely had Jesus crucified due to the threat of Jewish revolt presented by the growing public acclamation of Jesus as a political emissary of God, "King of the Jews," the charge that is consistent in all four Gospels. See particularly Paula Fredricksen, Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews: A Jewish Life and the Emergence of Christianity (New York: Vintage Books, 2000).
34. Note that content at www.thepassionofthechrist.com does not remain static, but may change.
35. Thomas Allen, Marcellino D'Ambrosio, Matthew Pinto, Paul Thigpen, and Mark Shea, A Guide to the Passion: 100 Questions About The Passion of the Christ (Caterham, U.K.: Catholic Exchange, 2004).
36. A Guide to the Passion, back cover.
37. A Guide to the Passion, 10.
38. The construction of gender is complex, e.g. Satan's appearance as an androgynous anti-Mary figure with an aberrant demon man-child and Herod's effeminate (and homosexual?) depiction and demeanor.
39. The free evangelizing book presented to me with my ticket identifies the two anonymous Jewish leaders in the Sanhedrin who speak up for Jesus as Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea. Thus, whether or not the film is presenting positive portrayals of non-Christian Jews in these two minor characters, these particular Christian authors have reduced the film's dualism to Christian Saints (Good) vs. Jews (Bad) by identifying every good Jew with Christianity. A Guide to the Passion, 29.
https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/jrf/vol8/iss1/10 18